Obama admin authorizes the CIA to kill a U.S. citizen overseas via drone

[Red Dawn]

Red was actually in Dillinger's gang. :twisted:

And you were the lady in Red.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Dillinger

Really, is that all you have? Dillinger was shot happened almost 80 years ago! And from your link:

Bureau of Investigation agents, led by Melvin Purvis, moved to arrest him as he left the theater and he pulled a weapon and attempted to flee, but was shot three times. One bullet entered through the back of his neck and exited from his face, killing him. The crime scene and even Dillinger's autopsy immediately took on a sensationalized, circus-like atmosphere.

So even your own link shows they TRIED to arrest him, but he pulled a gun and ran. I don't see anything that says they gunned him down right as he walked out. So you are still wrong. There was no assassination attempt to "shoot on sight".

As to Ruby Ridge, again, from your article:

Both the internal 1994 Ruby Ridge Task Force Report and the public 1995 Senate subcommittee report on Ruby Ridge criticized the rules of engagement as unconstitutional. A 1995 GAO report on use of force by federal law enforcement agencies stated: "In October 1995, Treasury and Justice adopted use of deadly force policies to standardize the various policies their component agencies had adopted over the years." The major change was the requirement of a reasonable belief of an "imminent" danger of death or serious physical injury, which brought all federal LEA deadly force policies in line with US Supreme Court rulings (Tennessee v. Garner, 471 U.S. 1, 18 (1985) and Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386 (1989)) that applied to state and local LE agencies

So after the fact, again, their ROE was ruled unconstitutional. So they did it once, were wrong, and the rules were made explicitly clear to prevent it from happening. So that link pretty much shoots your concept down. Way to prove my point for me.

So both of your links are basically irrelevant. You got anything else that actually makes your case, instead of shooting your own case down? So got anything real? Anything that wasn't ruled illegal maybe?

 

[Red Dawn]

Really, is that all you have? Dillinger was shot happened almost 80 years ago! And from your link:



So even your own link shows they TRIED to arrest him, but he pulled a gun and ran. I don't see anything that says they gunned him down right as he walked out. So you are still wrong. There was no assassination attempt to "shoot on sight".

As to Ruby Ridge, again, from your article:



So after the fact, again, their ROE was ruled unconstitutional. So they did it once, were wrong, and the rules were made explicitly clear to prevent it from happening. So that link pretty much shoots your concept down. Way to prove my point for me.

So both of your links are basically irrelevant. You got anything else that actually makes your case, instead of shooting your own case down? So got anything real? Anything that wasn't ruled illegal maybe?

So what should they do, just ignore him or go to an Al Qaeda Safe House and try to arrest him?

 

[nobodyknows]

So what should they do, just ignore him or go to an Al Qaeda Safe House and try to arrest him?

LOL, send Dog after him!!

Dog: "Stop or I'll blast you with my paintball gun!!"

 

[Fear No Evil]

So what should they do, just ignore him or go to an Al Qaeda Safe House and try to arrest him?

I think a stern talking to combined with an apology may help.

 

[werepossum]

[

Funny how everything you disagree with becomes magically "far left". I never realized that defending the constitution is "far left". Could you enlighten us on how you came up with this amazing political concept?

I guess any R's that oppose this must be a RINO, right? Because true believers would never oppose unlimited executive authority I guess. Yep, all those republicans must all be wussy lefties in disguise.




A US citizen commits a crime, which is what this guy is accused of (note to you, note the "accused" part). You can't determine guilt or innocent without a trial, which he hasn't had.

You commit a crime, you get a trial. He commits a crime, he gets a trial. You may not like the laws of this country, but you are required to abide by them, just like everyone, including the President. Still not sure how following the law is somehow "far left", but I guess you must have gotten that from Beck or Rush or someone, and are just blindly repeating that phrase.

Act of war /= crime, but kudos for opposing your own side when you think it is wrong. BTW, a US citizen in a foreign country should enjoy no special protections. If anything the bar should be higher for attacking non-combatants who are NOT US citizens. For myself I won't say Obama SHOULD do this, only that I think he is doing nothing wrong if he thinks it necessary. This is war, not crime. Furthermore, it is a world war, civilization versus radical Islam. Allowing radical Islam to conduct total war whilst we conduct criminal proceedings will result in a worldwide Islamic theocracy, although the wars to determine which brand of Islamic theocracy would probably remove any last vestige of civilization even by Islamic standards. Personally I'm glad to see President Obama fighting the war that candidate Obama denied was happening, whether it is growth in office or simply abandoning useful politics.

My quoted statement was tongue in cheek, thus the laugh. In reality many Pubbies are against this, some because they distrust (if not outright hate) everything the Messiah does and some because they are against extending this kind of power to government. Likewise, some lefties manage to oppose this even though the Messiah has ordained it. Siddhartha was essentially correct, I'm just tweaking his nose a bit.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

So what should they do, just ignore him or go to an Al Qaeda Safe House and try to arrest him?

So are you going to post a link that actually defends what you claimed about this being do different then what happens to murderers. Still waiting on that.

Your last try ended up proving my point, not yours. But hey, way to try to deflect the thread away from that with your new comment.

As to your answer, how about do something that is legal? Isn't that the point of following our laws? We follow the law, even if we don't like it. Just like the military follows their ROE, even if they don't like it.

You want to unilaterally execute US citizens, call your congressman and try and get a law passed.

 

[cliftonite]

So are you going to post a link that actually defends what you claimed about this being do different then what happens to murderers. Still waiting on that.

Your last try ended up proving my point, not yours. But hey, way to try to deflect the thread away from that with your new comment.

As to your answer, how about do something that is legal? Isn't that the point of following our laws? We follow the law, even if we don't like it. Just like the military follows their ROE, even if they don't like it.

You want to unilaterally execute US citizens, call your congressman and try and get a law passed.

We are in a war against the Taliban and Al Qadea and he has joined that side. What is so difficult about this?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

Act of war /= crime, but kudos for opposing your own side when you think it is wrong. BTW, a US citizen in a foreign country should enjoy no special protections. If anything the bar should be higher for attacking non-combatants who are NOT US citizens. For myself I won't say Obama SHOULD do this, only that I think he is doing nothing wrong if he thinks it necessary. This is war, not crime.

Well, I don't have a side, I'll vote for (unfortunately) the lesser of two evils, since we rarely have a chance to vote for anyone good. I don't really like either party, and I will never vote/agree with something just because "my party" votes for it. That kind of thinking is what both parties love, and isn't helping this country. Of course, trying to shoe-horn everything into a left/right issue doesn't help either.

I don't understand your idea. Why should non-Americans have greater protection?

And I disagree that this is a war. We are "fighting", if we can even use taht word, maybe 10,000 total true terrorist? (I doubt people know the real number). Even most of AQ probably isn't "real" AQ, but various idiots that use AQ's name to get attention and recognition. No matter what the number, they people are a very small minority of any race/religion/country. So fighting a "war on terror" is semantics, and stupid. Just like us fighting that oh so successful "war on drugs". Can't fight a war on an idea, it's impossible.

But either way, singling out a specific person(s) to execute them without oversight or any sort of due process is wrong. How do we know this guy has done all the things he was accused of? Maybe we do have proof, but it's a slippery slope, and all of a sudden, we will be executing people by mistake. Similar to Gitmo, where all of them were guilty, except we found out later that no one had evidence of guilt on the vast majority of them. That could easily happen with an assassination program, where we end up killing innocent US citizens. That's really bad, and wrong.

My quoted statement was tongue in cheek, thus the laugh. In reality many Pubbies are against this, some because they distrust (if not outright hate) everything the Messiah does and some because they are against extending this kind of power to government. Likewise, some lefties manage to oppose this even though the Messiah has ordained it. Siddhartha was essentially correct, I'm just tweaking his nose a bit.

I agree on this, as I noted above, everyone should be debating the issues, not which political group did it. A lot of the people that complained about Bush's actions have now shut up because Obama is doing the same (and adding new things, like this), which is just as wrong as everyone that gave Bush a pass on everything, only to criticize Obama for doing the same thing.

 

[Red Dawn]

So are you going to post a link that actually defends what you claimed about this being do different then what happens to murderers. Still waiting on that.

Your last try ended up proving my point, not yours. But hey, way to try to deflect the thread away from that with your new comment.

That's what I get for being so lazy that i was only willing to spend 5 seconds on google to look up an instance to back my claim. Unfortunately being the lazy asshole that I am I'm not going to bother so you win.

As to your answer, how about do something that is legal? Isn't that the point of following our laws? We follow the law, even if we don't like it. Just like the military follows their ROE, even if they don't like it.

You want to unilaterally execute US citizens, call your congressman and try and get a law passed.

Nope, the guy is in the act of aiding and abetting our enemies so I'm perfectly fine with him being taken out with extreme prejudice.

 

[werepossum]

Act of war /= crime, but kudos for opposing your own side when you think it is wrong. BTW, a US citizen in a foreign country should enjoy no special protections. If anything the bar should be higher for attacking non-combatants who are NOT US citizens. For myself I won't say Obama SHOULD do this, only that I think he is doing nothing wrong if he thinks it necessary. This is war, not crime.

Well, I don't have a side, I'll vote for (unfortunately) the lesser of two evils, since we rarely have a chance to vote for anyone good. I don't really like either party, and I will never vote/agree with something just because "my party" votes for it. That kind of thinking is what both parties love, and isn't helping this country. Of course, trying to shoe-horn everything into a left/right issue doesn't help either.

I don't understand your idea. Why should non-Americans have greater protection?

And I disagree that this is a war. We are "fighting", if we can even use taht word, maybe 10,000 total true terrorist? (I doubt people know the real number). Even most of AQ probably isn't "real" AQ, but various idiots that use AQ's name to get attention and recognition. No matter what the number, they people are a very small minority of any race/religion/country. So fighting a "war on terror" is semantics, and stupid. Just like us fighting that oh so successful "war on drugs". Can't fight a war on an idea, it's impossible.

But either way, singling out a specific person(s) to execute them without oversight or any sort of due process is wrong. How do we know this guy has done all the things he was accused of? Maybe we do have proof, but it's a slippery slope, and all of a sudden, we will be executing people by mistake. Similar to Gitmo, where all of them were guilty, except we found out later that no one had evidence of guilt on the vast majority of them. That could easily happen with an assassination program, where we end up killing innocent US citizens. That's really bad, and wrong.




I agree on this, as I noted above, everyone should be debating the issues, not which political group did it. A lot of the people that complained about Bush's actions have now shut up because Obama is doing the same (and adding new things, like this), which is just as wrong as everyone that gave Bush a pass on everything, only to criticize Obama for doing the same thing.

I think a US citizen in Yemen owes more to, and is more subject to the authority of, the USA than is a Yemeni citizen in Yemen. So yes, I think the bar for striking should be higher for the Yemeni (whom honestly I expect to be agitating and recruiting for terrorism.)

As far as innocents being killed, that always happens in war. Always. Treating a war like a criminal matter does not change this, it merely protects innocents from death through this one cause while arguably, by continuing the conflict and hamstringing ourselves, it increases the number of innocents killed through other means.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

That's what I get for being so lazy that i was only willing to spend 5 seconds on google to look up an instance to back my claim. Unfortunately being the lazy asshole that I am I'm not going to bother so you win.

Nope, the guy is in the act of aiding and abetting our enemies so I'm perfectly fine with him being taken out with extreme prejudice.

Well, you and nick1985 made the ridiculous claims about assassinations happening in the US all the time by law enforcement. So don't blame me for making a dumb statement, it's your own fault.

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? As soon as the government labels someone a terrorist (proof or not, just call him one), he loses all rights? Is that what this country was founded on? Call him a name, no proof needed, and then we can blow him away. You sure are bloodthirsty.

What happens when we decide to blow away the next person, and it turns out they were the wrong person, or they were innocent? Do you care about that? what if it was you that got mistaken for a terrorist? Or one of your friends or family? Do you mind the government killing them without any proof as well?

 

[Red Dawn]

What happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? As soon as the government labels someone a terrorist (proof or not, just call him one), he loses all rights? Is that what this country was founded on? Call him a name, no proof needed, and then we can blow him away. You sure are bloodthirsty.

What happens when we decide to blow away the next person, and it turns out they were the wrong person, or they were innocent? Do you care about that? what if it was you that got mistaken for a terrorist? Or one of your friends or family? Do you mind the government killing them without any proof as well?

If they are in the presence of our enemies and it can be confirmed that they are aiding abetting our enemies then I don't have a problem with it.

Maybe you feel they should be tried first in absentia?

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

If they are in the presence of our enemies and it can be confirmed that they are aiding abetting our enemies then I don't have a problem with it.

Maybe you feel they should be tried first in absentia?

So where is the confirmation? What meets your criteria for "confirmed"? A news article from an "anonymous gov official" who could be lying out his ass? I think we have seen enough of that in the past 8-9 years to not trust anything anyone says off the record. Hell, half the time they lie on the record as well.

I think the law should be followed.

 

[cwjerome]

Please post a link where a police agency or FBI was after a suspect, and executed him without trying to arrest him. Show us when they publicly announce a "shoot on sight" order saying don't even bother trying to arrset him, just kill him.

Otherwise, I call bullshit. And don't post something where someone tried to resist, and got shot. I mean a suspect was walking on the street, and was gunned down by the FBI/police.

What is this "shoot on site" stuff you've invented? Is it like the "executive order" bullshit you made up as well?

Let put aside the fact that this isn't law enforcement issue and just focus on your overactive imagination. The reality is, Obama put Awlaki on a "capture or kill" list. Specifically, the issue is the use of UAVs to kill him if the opportunity arises. If it were as easy as strolling through the Yemeni countryside and arresting him that would have been done a long time ago, although the chance still exists we can or will get lucky and apprehend. However, if we happen to get a positive ID and a drone is able to launch on him we won't hesitate.

So what is this "shoot on site" garbage again? Oh yeah, the same made-up nonsense as your "executive order" gibberish.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue… I don’t even feel that strongly about it, I simply support the Obama decision for reasons I made perfectly clear already. People can have a different opinion and I respect that. What's laughable about you though is the way you sensationalize and straight make shit up in order to argue against points nobody is making.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

What is this "shoot on site" stuff you've invented? Is it like the "executive order" bullshit you made up as well?

Dud, I am sorry you are clueless and misinformed, but you choose to be like that, so we can't help you. Facts are facts, you still can't present any of your own.

Let put aside the fact that this isn't law enforcement issue and just focus on your overactive imagination. The reality is, Obama put Awlaki on a "capture or kill" list. Specifically, the issue is the use of UAVs to kill him if the opportunity arises. If it were as easy as strolling through the Yemeni countryside and arresting him that would have been done a long time ago, although the chance still exists we can or will get lucky and apprehend. However, if we happen to get a positive ID and a drone is able to launch on him we won't hesitate.

So what is this "shoot on site" garbage again? Oh yeah, the same made-up nonsense as your "executive order" gibberish.

Once again, your ignorance is showing. Your own post shows you don't understand. I bolded your post about it to point it out to you. I don't how you define "shoot on sight", but when the CIA is allowed to drop a bomb (or shoot a missile) on this guy, if they locate him, without trying to arrest/detain him, that pretty much is "shoot on sight", except instead of using a gun, they are using a bomb/missile.

That pretty simple to understand, but you choose to remain clueless, as your posts have indicated.

Obama has authorized the CIA assassinate him (kill him). So if someone says they found he is sleeping in some house, they will blow up the house with a hellfire or LGB. That is again, pretty much the definition of "shoot on sight". Sorry you can't understand that.

Reasonable people can disagree on this issue… I don’t even feel that strongly about it, I simply support the Obama decision for reasons I made perfectly clear already. People can have a different opinion and I respect that. What's laughable about you though is the way you sensationalize and straight make shit up in order to argue against points nobody is making.

So you are fine with unlimited presidential authority. We get it. You are an authoritarian. We get it. You don't mind throwing the law out the window. We get it.

Something you don't comprehend (among other things) is that this isn't a one-time event. If this is allowed to happen, and no one challenges it, it will set a precedent that will happen again and again. You will have just given the office of the President unlimited power to execute people without any sort of due process. But I guess to you, that isn't a problem, right?

Just like the PATRIOT act was explained as only to use against those evil terrorists, and not "normal" crimes, once it was passed, it was used for normal crimes. Whoops! So much for only using it on "terrorists". Same concept.

But anyway, you have your mind made up, you don't care about facts, so there isn't a point to discuss, since you just throw out insults and not facts.